The criticism personally offends him and he cannot tolerate it. Surely you have known people like this in conversation [and department politics?], and they didn’t even have any guns or nuclear weapons or polonium behind them.
That’s with help from Natasha. Here was Bryan’s question:
Putin is popular…what’s the point of persecuting the opposition?…if he’s really so popular, why risk looking like a paranoid despot?
Because polonium was mentioned I’d like to remind that it is far from obvious that Putin killed Litvinenko. In fact, the only reason to believe that Putin was involved in murder of Litvinenko (Politkovskaja, etc) is because everyone knows he is paranoid dictator and everyone knows he is paranoid dictator because he was involved in all these murders… It is pretty curious to see how this kind of things happens.
Alexey, come on… Of the few places one can get polonium on the planet, most are controlled by Russian security forces loyal to whom?
Ok, maybe someone else could get some of a substance very hard to get, and manage, and transport, and deliver in another country (info leaked to the press in London indicates the polonium-210 had a marker substance that was indeed Russian). But who would likely use it to poison someone with little regard for the collateral damage?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pianist9dec09,0,6670124.story?coll=la-home-world
Putin doesn’t dislike political dissent– he despises it and hates the dissenters. It’s in everything he’s said over the past few years in public, in released speeches, and in ‘official proclamations.’
And, while associations are not actual evidence of guilt– after a while, the people he has close to him and the bodycount of those who opposed him tends to paint him into a corner.
Is it really paranoid to smash dissent? Assuming one can get around the moral qualms about murdering people who disagree with you, Putin’s actions make perfect sense.
If you murder all the adults in a family in a place where family is huge and loyalty to family is simply assumed, it is not unreasonable to think that the male children might grow up some day and take revenge for their parents death. Therefore, even though those children clearly pose no threat today, they may grow to become a threat in the future. Thus nipping the problem in the bud and killing the male children as well is simply common sense (again, from the presumed point of view of a murderer).
Putin is doing the same thing, he is taking out his enemies before they possibly in the future grow from powerless to powerful.
None of this is to say I condone what he is doing, rather it is simply an explanation that has some rational basis if one starts from the point of view that murder isn’t irrational in the first place.
Because the best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
if he’s really so popular, why risk looking like a paranoid despot?
Because he’s not “looking like” a paranoid despot, he really is one?
See here:
In theory, by spending $203.94, before tax and any handling charges, and then disassembling six brushes, someone with lab experience could accumulate a lethal dose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/weekinreview/03broad.html?pagewanted=print
I am not a propaganda stooge, I live outside Russia and have no stake in Putin reputation. I am not very stupid and I still do not think Putin is bloody paranoid dictator. May be I am wrong, but may be everyone else who comments on this blog is wrong — why do not you consider such possibility?
A lot of people smarter then me believed that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. I did not think think so but instead of congratulating myself a got scared — if those smart people where so easily led to very wrong conclusion, may be we are not that difficult to manipulate?
May be I am manipulated into not seeing Putin bloody side. But what if you fail to see obvious indication of opposite? Just entertain this possibility. It happened many times with very smart people.
Simply because bloody dictator in faraway country is such damn good story that it basically writes itself.
In short, Putin’s an asshole. And if Litivenko was correct, Putin’s also a pedophile.
Let’s remember, Litivenko didn’t get just a lethal dose, he got a massive dose. That points to a well-funded operation.
I thought it was pretty clear Andrei Lugovoi did the killing, and he’s basically a Putin stooge that Russia has refused to extradite. Am I mistaken? I am really not well educated on this.
> I thought it was pretty clear Andrei Lugovoi did the killing, and he’s basically a Putin stooge that Russia has refused to extradite. Am I mistaken?
May be and may be not. The only thing staying between Lugovoi extradiction and Putin third term is Russian constitution. Putin already refused to violate it to be elected for the third term. Why should he violate it to do a favor to Britain?
If Britain wanted to prosecute Lugovoi he could be tried in Russia. Yes, you can say that he would not be prosecuted anyway, you can say that courts are a sham, etc. But they did not even bother to present evidence officially. They did not even try.
So I guess they do not really want this story to go forward, in Russian court or British.
Alexey!? You wrote: “If Britain wanted to prosecute Lugovoi he could be tried in Russia…But they did not even bother to present evidence officially. They did not even try.”
That’s just not true in any way. shape or form! The Crown Prosecution Service filed the charges and publicly stated they have enough evidence for criminal charges against Lugovoi. The Russians will not comply with an extradition order. Now the party is running him for an office. The election will be fairly held and he will win, no matter the vote totals, and he will then have blanket diplomatic immunity.
No one in the West expects justice to be done here. No one really thinks he will ever be punished for killing his intended target and who knows how many more with the side effects. you are mistaken to think the UK has some Kangaroo court that wants to prosecute him for fun. And most outside observers already know how this will end. He’s most likely guilty and it doesn’t matter– he’ll skate free as others have after they’ve helped opposition writers and politicians out of high windows or in front of speeding cars…
Alexey, we have an open mind about evidence and law, we just don’t see those things in Russia.
> No one in the West expects justice to be done here.
Did they try to prosecute him in Russia? No. This possibility was open and was not used. Sorry, but “no one expects justice” argument can not be used if no one really tried to use all possibilities.
> you are mistaken to think the UK has some Kangaroo court that wants to prosecute him for fun.
I think better of UK courts, but public opinion can be powerful.
> The Russians will not comply with an extradition order.
Because in the name of justice UK was asking Russia to violate its own laws. Do you see a problem here?
For Economists particularly, there are insights on autocracies to be found in “The Social Dilemma,” which is Vol. 8 of the Selected Works of Gordon Tullock (Liberty Fund 2005)C.K. Rowley Ed. Demanding reading, but informative and forming.
Comments on this entry are closed.